IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC-126/2014
Date of Filing: 10.09.2014. Date of Final Order: 29.04.2015.
Complainant: Merina Khatun. W/O-Sahat Hossain, Vill.- Housenagar, P.O.- Tinpakuria,P.S.- Samserganj,Dist.- Murshidabad.(W.B.).
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1.P.F.Commissioner.EPFO Office, Vill.- Ghorsala,
P.O.-Raghunathgunj.P.S.-Jiajanj, Dist.- Murshidabad.
2. Branch Manager,United Bank of India, Aurangabad Branch,
Vill+P.O.- Aurangabad. P.S.- Suti-2, Dist.- Murshidabad.
Present: Hon’ble President,Anupam Bhattacharyya.
Hon’ble Member, Samaresh Kumar Mitra
Hon’ble Member, Pranati Ali .
FINAL ORDER
Samaresh Kumar Mitra, Member.
The factual aspects of this complaint are that the Complainant being a pensioner of Jangipur EPF Office having PPO.No.-1139 and received pension till, Dec.2008. But the matter of grievance is that she received pension of only two months for the period of January, 2009 to March 2011 so she is entitled to get arrear pension of 25 months and getting the pension regularly thereafter. The arrear pension is Rs.3750.00 i.e. Rs.150 per month for 25 months. The complainant several times visited the Office of EPF and filed written complaint at least 6 times but the OP No.1 misbehaved and refused to entertain her. Similarly she was refused by the OP NO.2. She being a poor lady getting Rs.150.00 per month as pension and such meagre amount is not given in time or kept unpaid for a considerable period for which the complainant suffered pain and agony and took the shelter of this forum for redressal and prayed for in the prayer portion of the complaint.
OP No.1 appeared by Swapan Kumar Dey, Enforcement Officer of Employees Provident Fund Organization. That on 11.12.2014 a petition filed by K.C.De, Assistant P.F. Commissioner (Pension), SRO, Jangipur in which he stated that Monthly Pension in respect of Merina Khatun had been sent to the United Bank of India, Aurangabad Extension Counter , Aurangabad, Murshidabad for the period from Jan.2009 to March,2011 except the months May and June of 2010 which had been credited on 26.08.2010 and 27.08.2010 by its Lakshmipur Branch. Merina Khatun had changed the paying Branch from Aurangabad Extn. Counter to Lakshmipur Branch and she is getting her pension regularly from April,2014 through Laskshmipur Branch, UBI, Umarpur Branch and Aurangabad Branch has been asked to intimate this office regarding the payment details of the Pension during the period from Jan.2009 to Jan 2011 mentioning cheque Nos, amounts and dates and the feedback is yet to be received.
That on 10.3.2015 OP No.1 filed his version by Julian Tobias, Regional P.F. Commissioner(II), SRO, Jangipur in which he stated that the monthly, Widow and Children Pension in favour of Jamina Bibi and Merina Khatun @ 450/- and 150/- respectively has been disbursed regularly since 9th August, 2005 under EPS 95, vide Pension Payment Order No. JL/JNG/1139. In accordance with the details furnished by the claimant that the Link Branch of UBI, Umarpur Branch receives the consolidated payment for all pensioners and thereafter distribute the same through the payee branches, here the payee Branch is UBI, Aurangabad Branch. The fact remains that during the period Jan, 2009 to March, 2011 monthly pension has been released by the Office of EPFO, SRO, Jangipur as usual, after submission of life certificate by the petitioner in the month of November. As per records a sum of Rs.1,950/- was sent for Jan,2009 to Jan,2010 in the month of Feb,2010 , together with Rs.150/- as monthly children pension to the petitioner for Feb,2010, Thereafter, from March 2010 to March 2011 the said monthly Children Pension was sent to payee bank account at Aurangabad Branch.
The OP No.1 further assailed that it is not understood when both the widow and children pension were sent to the said Link Branch of the UBI at Umarpur then how the children pension to Merina Khatun was not paid by the said UBI, Aurangabad Branch. That every month a sum of more than a Crore of Rupees is sent to the said Link Branch of UBI, Umarpur to remit pension though their nearly 80 payee Branches out of which the said Link Branch returns the undistributed amount to EPFO, SRO, Jangipur along with PPO Nos. against which the said money relates to . But during the period 2009, 2010 and 2011 no such details available with this office as the said details had not been sent by the said UBI Link Branch, Umarpur and after several reminders the Link Branch of UBI, Umarpur and Aurangabad confirmed vide their E-mail dated 19th Jan,2015 that pension for Jan.2009 to Jan.2010 , for April 2010 for July 2010 and from Nov. 2010 to December 2011 , Feb. 2011 and March 2011 had been returned to EPFO, SRO, Jangipur and partly refunded the undisbursed pension pertaining to the period March 2010 to Aug.2010 and for Jan.2011 through demand draft on 16.01.2015 and on 20.1.2015.That after receipt of full information from the said Link Branch of united Bank of India Umarpur the entire Monthly Pension from January 2009 to March 2011 has been remitted to the petitioner, Merina Khatuns savings account amounting to Rs.3750.00 in Aurangabad Branch A/C No. 1167010107496 through the link branch of UBI, Umarpur on 30.01.2015 and the same has credited in her account on 03.02.2015 as intimated by the Link Branch of UBI, Umarpur.
That on 23.04.2015 the OP No.1 by producing a letter being Ref. No.UBI/UMR/EPFO/APRIL/01/2015-16 dated 06.04.2015 informed that EPFO Pension of Rs.3750.00 has been credited in the account number 1167010107496 of Merina Khatun as pr list provided by EPFO, SRO, Jangipur on 03.02.2015.
The complainant did not turn up on 14.03.2015 & 23.04.2015 and no step has been taken on her behalf.
That the OP No.2 appeared by its agents on 05.11.2014 and no written version has been filed till to date but filed a few petitions praying time to file written version.
That on 23.04.2015 the representative of the OP No.1 submitted that they have deposited the desired amount of the complainant after getting confirmed that the bank did not disburse the amount of the complainant and returned it in the account of the OP No.1. And also submitted to drop the case as the dispute of the complainant is no more.
It appears from the case record and the documents as produced by the parties in dispute that the dispute of the complainant has been redressed by the OP No.1 against whom the main allegation has been raised. But no amount as to interest component or any compensation has been given by the OP No.1.
In this circumstance we are in a view that the complainant is not interested to proceed with the case as she getting the money from the OP No.1 which transpires from the account details of the Complainant, became satisfied and did not turn up further before this Forum for getting her claimed amount. The contesting OP No.1 after crediting the disputed amount in the account of the complainant discharged its liability and produced the account details in which the disputed amount has credited in favour of this complainant. The claim of the complainant is not denied by the contesting OP No.1 but paying the due amount without delay the contesting OP showed its good gesture. But it is the question that why the complainant move from door to door to get such meagre amount from the OP No.1 although the entitlement is not disputed. It is the admitted fact that due to negligence of the OPs the pension of the complainant was pending for 25 months. And the complainant has compelled to file complaint before the appropriate Forum for redressal of his dispute.
The deficiency as well as unfair trade practice of the OP No.2 is not proved at all but he/ she was under liability to file its Written Version in this proceeding to deny/admit the claim of the complainant. As to why he did not disburse the pension of this petitioner but returned to the OP No.1. By refusing the legitimate claim of the complainant the OPs are deficient in providing service to its consumer. The case record shows that he is too casual to take necessary steps in this particular proceeding which is not expected by this Forum. So we are in considered the opinion to dismiss the complaint due to non prosecution.
ORDER
Hence it is ordered that the complaint be and the same is dismissed due to non prosecution. The OPs are exonerated from their liability.
Let plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied, free of cost, to the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgement/ be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
